Is the Supreme Court seeking revenge or administering justice?

Read Article

Comment: Dictatorship of the sc

Okonko Palm
2016-07-31 01:08:13
Comment to:
Is the Supreme Court Seeking Revenge or Administer

There were in fact grounds on which the contempt case could be challenged and the law tested.Instead the lawyers for the contemnors went cap in hand and lay prostrate at the mercy of the judges who saw it as a sign of weakness and exploited it.

Perhaps the lawyers thought their first duty was to their clients and getting them a lenient sentence would achieve that purpose,sadly it backfired and so must be held responsible for the botch.

The only time that a judge can hold a person in contempt and administer instant justice is when the contemnous act occurred under the court's own eye and within its own hearing and therefore will not require a third parties testimony.But what about indirect contempt.

Indirect contempt of court is the violation of a court order outside the immediate presence of the court. A charge of Criminal Indirect Contempt of Court is a criminal charge. Defendants charged in this manner are afforded all the usual privileges of other criminal defendants, like the right to a trial by jury, to examine, and to call, witnesses, and to testify on one's own behalf.

The supreme court as the custodian of the right of the citizen must know what is natural justice and the rules against bias.A fair trial can not be devoid of the right of appeal and unless the lawyers stand up to the judges and challenge some of their rulings we will end up with the dictatorship of the sc.

This article is closed for comments.

Okonko Palm on Jul 31, 2016 01:08
Dictatorship of the sc
Kwaku Azar on Jul 31, 2016 15:26